A42757:906
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversy concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiastical government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chief objections made against the Presbyterial government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...
London: printed by E.G. for Richard Whitaker, 1646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
After Mr Prynne hath put forth his strength to prove that Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament is not meant 1 Cor. 5. 11. he comes in the next place to answer the argument drawn by consequence▪ If we may not so much as eat with such a one at our own Tables, far less at the Lords Table. Whereunto his answer is, The argument is fallacious, saith he, because it varieth in the kind of eating, the one being civill, the other spiritual; the one private in ones own house, or another's, where he hath absolute freedom or liberty to eat or not to eat with another, the other public in the Church, &c. But all this (say I) maketh our argument the stronger; for if it be sin to a private man to eat in his own house with a scandalous brother, though this be but a civill fellowship in which there is more liberty and less latitude than in religious fellowship; how much more sinful is it for Church-officers to admit such a one to Sacramental eating with the Church?
After Mr Prynne hath put forth his strength to prove that Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament is not meant 1 Cor. 5. 11. he comes in the next place to answer the argument drawn by consequence▪ If we may not so much as eate with such a one at our owne Tables, farre lesse at the Lords Table. Whereunto his answer is, The argument is fallacions, saith he, because it varieth in the kinde of eating, the one being civill, the other spirituall; the one private in ones owne house, or anothers, where he hath absolute freedome or liberty to eate or not to eate with another, the other publike in the Church, &c. But all this (say I) maketh our argument the stronger; for if it be sinne to a private man to eate in his owne house with a scandalous brother, though this be but a civill fellowship in which there is more liberty and lesse latitude than in religious fellowship; how much more sinfull is it for Church-officers to admit such a one to Sacramentall eating with the Church?